Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has SIA lost its way ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 259850 View Post
    The list does not include BR, which has significantly increased its US frequencies, and most of the flights are on the new 777-300ERs, with the older 747s being phased out. Transits in TPE are timed to match flights coming in from SIN and SGN. It is kind of sad, but it is faster to fly SIN-LAX on BR than on SQ.

    But the reality is there's not much SQ can do for now. It is not economical for it to fly non-stop to the US with its current fleet. If only SIN were a couple of thousand kms further north....
    I'm not sure that SQ is trying hard enough. Once upon a time, SQ flew to LAX via TPE, the SQ6 flight. Presumably then, securing 5th freedom rights via TPE per se is not an issue. And for a brief period of time, SQ also flew to Las Vegas via HKG. The timing of the flight was great - another night flight out of HKG. So presumably, 5th freedom rights via HKG per se is not an issue.

    The article above correctly cited USA-Asia sector as the one market naturally shielded from Middle Eastern competition. Is SQ trying hard enough? Even USA carriers and JAL/NH are pioneering trans-Pacific flight via Haneda. Has SQ even explored this? MH once ran LAX-NRT evening flight, departing LAX at midnight and arriving NRT early morning. It gave this up as MH keep running into financial difficulties. Ironically, this night flight timing is now taken over by Japanese/USA carriers via Haneda. Could SQ have capitalised on this earlier?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Dickson View Post
      I'm not sure that SQ is trying hard enough. Once upon a time, SQ flew to LAX via TPE, the SQ6 flight. Presumably then, securing 5th freedom rights via TPE per se is not an issue.
      They continued on this route as SQ27/28 for a while after the tragic incident. I remember this well as I used to fly the evening SIN-TPE segment quite a bit. It was downgraded to a 772ER as they couldn't get enough premium traffic (especially as the A345 was flying roughly at the same time). There was talk of upgrading it to 77W but it ended up getting nixed, and TPE ceased to be transit hub for SQ. LAX eventually went from 3x to 1x daily. Meanwhile you can fly on CX via HKG 4x daily (with decent transit times in HKG, sometimes even <1hr).

      So they definitely tried, but TPE is an extremely price competitive market.....I mentioned that BR is increasing frequencies but the flights can't be high-yielding given the prices the premium seats are going for.
      Last edited by 259850; 2 September 2014, 04:57 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Dickson View Post
        Four years after launch, SIA scrapped its non-stop services to Los Angeles and New York late last year due to weak demand and high fuel prices.
        It's more like 9 years, isn't it? Four years would be the period after SIA converted the A345 flights to all-business class.

        Anyway, it surprised me that the article didn't mention CX starting flights to Newark after SIA pulled the non-stop flights and did not reinstate a one-stop option to EWR. And now CX is going to launch another US station - Boston. Mind you, CX isn't only growing in the US but Europe too, launching ZUR and MAN soon.

        As discussed in another thread, SIA seems to be merely maintaining status quo. The North American market is especially challenging because of the distance and the need for current SIA flights to refuel somewhere. Hopefully the A350-900R will materialize and give SIA the chance to restart non-stop flights to USA, to more points than just LAX and EWR.

        Comment


        • #34
          I think many of us can easily list down what's wrong with SQ, but as I suggested in the "Has SQ lost its way" thread, let's suggest what SQ can do to move fwd? Its easy to criticise and complain, but what can SQ management do, taking into consideration the current global and regional market conditions, the competition from regional and Gulf carriers?

          If Tiger and Scoot are not the solution, how shd SQ respond to the LCCs? or just ignore them?

          Given the long-standing unhappiness abt SQ, from cabin crew's mechanical smiles to poor CJ class amenity kits, there is still a loyal following (not least among all the SQTalkers here), what can be done to hold on and expand this following? I for one feel that SQ's adjustment of its loyalty programme to op-up some KF status members, small may that incidence be, is a good start and shd be further encouraged.

          So suggestions on how new equipment types with the range and fuel efficiency could return SQ to US destinations are great; suggestions on what are some new destinations - balancing equipment efficiency and pax volume (SQ needs to make $$$, so for me to suggest my favourite CBR is not going to make much headway); suggestions on what are some amenity kits that could wow CJ pax without costing SQ too much (more), etc. Let's compile a list of suggestions that SQ could consider and move fwd with, what do you all guys think?

          Comment


          • #35
            I'm certainly finding this thread one of our most educative ones. Lots of really sharp opinions flying around, excuse the pun.

            Okay, I'll throw out an idea as an example of potential growth and test if it gets shredded or if it has some merit:

            LH has made it quite clear they have no more desire to fly long-hauls out of any other city except FRA. This proved a win for SQ as their struggle to fill seats on the SIN-MUC sector suddenly became a whole lot easier when LH pulled out.

            When BER is finally completed and TXL wound down, SQ could use an old 772ER to commence a 3x weekly service to Berlin. The absence of an F cabin would match it to a more leisure-oriented market and the older product would be acceptable by shaving off 3-4 hours compared to flying via FRA, much in the way SQ maintains a 2-3 weekly direct service to FCO. Berlin has changed an awful lot since the last time SQ flew there.

            Comment


            • #36
              A350-900R used to refer to the ULH version.

              It now refers to the regional version in the absence of a ULH variant

              (I can still hope though that buried in the 70 A350s ordered by SQ are long range versions!)

              The A345 was the wrong aircraft.

              Fares needed to be in SIN$13k range to make it profitable.

              They were close to that Thu-Sun but not Mon-Wed

              Plus getting rid of economy was a double edged sword

              Yes, more premium pax could be carried but they couldn't use the plane for short segments like SIN-CGK in between long haul flights

              Comment


              • #37
                Would it be an issue for SQ to get narrow bodies? If they cannot send wide bodies to certain routes as they can't fill seats, would it be such an issue for SQ to get narrow bodies?

                Comment


                • #38
                  You raise a good point FN-GN

                  Regional SQ can be operated by narrow body aircraft

                  Look at BA

                  They're doing ok against the LCCs

                  (I'd hate single aisle flights but we're talking SQ's survival here)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I'm pretty sure for now SQ's stance will remain that if narrow body is the only thing that can make the route feasible then it will go to MI. Plus I do not quite see SQ feeling their survival is on the line right ow and even if it was that this strategy would save them. YMMV

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 9V-SIA View Post
                      (I can still hope though that buried in the 70 A350s ordered by SQ are long range versions!)
                      Alas, apart from forums like this one, Airbus has been silent on a ULH version. It would seem that the demand for such an aircraft. Looking at the 350-900 standard range, all ME and North Asian airlines hubs are able to cover significant destinations. Only pairs like Australia-Europe, Australia-Eastern US and Singapore-US are too far. Unless SQ, QF, UA or DL see a significant demand for non-stops and place sufficient orders for Airbus to meet the cost of producing the ULH variant, I don't see it happening soon. I really hope I'm wrong though. I've already removed any expectation that I'll get my non-stops to the US before I retirement; and for post-retirement travel, I might just really need a stopover at that age.

                      Back to topic. Here're my suggestions:
                      1) If stopovers are required, make the stopovers something to look forward to. Ensure the lounges are loaded with wows: showers, massage chairs, threadmills, give customers the choice of having their meals in the lounge or on the plane (thus reducing costs if pax choose the former).
                      2) Hassle-free arrivals. For premium classes, follow EK's example of providing cars, (real) fasttrack. Hotel tie-ups that make convenience and economic sense. Discounts with rail or shuttle services.
                      3) Focus on in-flight crew training and retaining a higher percentage of senior crews so that the old x-factor can be passed down through mentoring or example-setting. Setting up e-surveys on every flight on a random sample of pax to obtain fast feedback and to reward the flight crew with instant feedback on their performance (doesn't need to be monetary, could be a star on their record).
                      4) Good value in-flight sales, that one can order on the plane and receive them only when they land (reducing costs of carrying the goods on the plane). Currently, many of the no-brand and branded electronic items are seriously over-priced (just do a search on Amazon for similar items!); only the desperate and too-rich will buy them onboard at those prices.

                      Ok enough - back to making money for my employer.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by demue View Post
                        I'm pretty sure for now SQ's stance will remain that if narrow body is the only thing that can make the route feasible then it will go to MI.
                        But then there is a discrepancy between the on-board products of SQ and MI. I'm surprised that MI's latest aircraft does not have PTVs, even in Business Class.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Well that is a valid point, but a different discussion altogether.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X